{"id":6807,"date":"2020-12-01T09:26:26","date_gmt":"2020-12-01T09:26:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.carteldamageclaims.com\/spanish-trucks-cartel-litigation-temporal-application-of-eu-damages-directive-provisions-on-limitation-and-qualification-of-harm\/"},"modified":"2024-01-03T15:37:33","modified_gmt":"2024-01-03T14:37:33","slug":"spanish-trucks-cartel-litigation-temporal-application-of-eu-damages-directive-provisions-on-limitation-and-qualification-of-harm-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/carteldamageclaims.com\/fr\/2020\/12\/01\/spanish-trucks-cartel-litigation-temporal-application-of-eu-damages-directive-provisions-on-limitation-and-qualification-of-harm-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Spanish Trucks Cartel Litigation: Temporal application of EU Damages Directive provisions on limitation and quantification of harm"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the aftermath of Directive 2014\/104\/EU<\/a> (Directive<\/strong>), Spain appears to be one of the most active jurisdictions dealing with antitrust damages cases. In particular, a multitude of Spanish courts have been seized with actions for compensation in relation to the European Trucks Cartel (Case AT.39824-Trucks<\/a>). In that context, preliminary ruling requests were addressed by Spanish judges to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU<\/strong>) on key legal aspects such as the establishment of alternative forum delicti under Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis Regulation (C-30\/20, RH vs Volvo<\/em><\/a>) and the civil liability of legal entities that are part of the same economic unit but not addressees of fining decisions (C-882\/19, Sumal<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n

Recently, a reference (C-267\/20, RM vs Volvo et DAF Trucks<\/em><\/a>) was addressed to the CJEU by the Regional Court of L\u00e9on (Court<\/strong>) on the temporal application of the provisions implementing Articles 10 (limitation periods) and 17 (qualification of harm) into national law (Request<\/strong>). In its Request<\/a>, the referring Court seeks to determine, if the application of these national provisions to claims that are presented to a court after the implementation of the Directive but relate to an antitrust infringement which had ended prior to the Directive\u2019s entry into force would be precluded by Article 22 (non-retroactivity) of the Directive.<\/p>\n

The response by the CJEU might have significant implications for pending and future actions across the European Union (EU<\/strong>), and could bring additional legal certainty for claimants, defendants and judges involved in complex antitrust damages litigation.<\/p>\n

Factual context<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Directive entered into force on 26 December 2014. The deadline for implementation was 27 December 2016. The Kingdom of Spain implemented the Directive on 27 May 2017 by Real Decreto-Ley 9\/2017<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

On 19 July 2016, the European Commission (EC<\/strong>) found in a settlement Decision (Decision<\/strong>) that several trucks\u2019 manufacturers participated in a single and continuous infringement of the EU cartel prohibition (and the EEA equivalent provision) for the period between 17 January 1997 to 18 January 2011 (European Trucks Cartel<\/strong>).<\/p>\n

A short press release<\/a> on the adoption of the Decision was made public on 19 July 2016. A non-confidential version of the Decision has been published on the website of the EC\u2019s Directorate-General for Competition on 6 April 2017.<\/p>\n

On 1 April 2018, RM, who had acquired three trucks during the period between 2006 and 2007, brought an action for damages before the Commercial Court of L\u00e9on (Action<\/strong>) against AB VOLVO and DAF TRUCKS NV (Defendants<\/strong>) for the harm caused as a result of their participation in the European Trucks Cartel.<\/p>\n

In its judgment of 15 October 2019, the Commercial Court of L\u00e9on decided inter alia that:<\/p>\n